US concern about missile monument

It is agreed to have one missile ABM system for each party. US chose not to have any because they had a two-type-missile defence, Spartan and Sprint.

Both missiles were part of the SENTINEL/SAFEGUARD systems. One site was allowed, not necessarily one missile type.

Russia didn’t, they chose to keep one type of ABM missile, and that only around their capital.

Russia’s system currently also has two missiles. Like SAFEGUARD, one is endoatmospheric, one is exoatmospheric. Granted, in the beginning there was only one type, GALOSH, but currently both GORGON and GAZELLE are in service.

The United States did not violate the ABM treaty. We withdrew from it fully legally. At ay time any party of these agreements are free to withdrawl from them. Also the ABM treaty was withdrawn from after it expired, as the US had no intention of renewing the agreement…

It violated the agreement. The part of the agreement it violated was regarding the positioning of radar systems. The ABM treaty required all radars capable of tracking space based targets like missiles or warheads be positioned only on the borders of the country that controls them. As I mentioned the US radars in Greenland and the UK violated the ABM treaty. The ABM treaty had no renewal features and didn’t expire. It did have an escape clause where a signature party could give six months warning that it was withdrawing from the treaty. After those 6 months had past it was no longer bound by the treaty. That is the right the Bush administration exercised and they followed the rules exactly.

You may be incorrect here also, as Russian mobile launchers do indeed have independant launch capabilites and are not tied into launching other missiles…

Except if you can get the launch codes for one weapon you have the launch codes for them all. That is all you need regarding authentication to order the troops to launch. They are duty bound to launch. Or do you think they ahve to be individually ordered to launch and when given that order they are allowed to contact you back to see if you really meant for them to fire the missiles?

The ABM treaty was only violated by one country and that was the United States of America.

The United States did not violate the ABM treaty. We withdrew from it fully legally. At ay time any party of these agreements are free to withdrawl from them. Also the ABM treaty was withdrawn from after it expired, as the US had no intention of renewing the agreement…

We are told it is also to defend from an illegal launch of Russian missiles… perhaps by a couple of disgruntaled ex soviet soldiers… of course if anyone had the launch ID to actually fire a missile they couldn’t just fire one… they’d be able to fire about 120… and if they are SS-18s that could mean 1200 warheads

…

You may be incorrect here also, as Russian mobile launchers do indeed have independant launch capabilites and are not tied into launching other missiles…

CAG out…

I wasnt the one decrying the US development of NMD was I though Roel. Just wanted to introduce the balance that Russia knows quite a bit about the employment and strategic potential of a limited BMD system seeings they have had one for several decades!.

The purpose of the ABM treaty to to set some base rules to ensure that later agreements on strategic weapons limits and then reductions could be made without the other circumventing them by devious means. The ABM treaty was only violated by one country and that was the United States of America. The treaty basically allowed a system with a maximum of 100 missiles to be based either around the countrys capital city which is where the Soviets put theirs) or around an ICBM field (which was where the US put theirs for a whole day of operational capability). Other rules include limiting early warning radars to the edge of a countries border… which the US radars in Thule and Greenland and Flyingdales in the UK all violated this aspect of the ABM treaty.

a bit about the employment and strategic potential of a limited BMD system seeings they have had one for several decades!.

The the ABM treaty is no more. The only proof that the NMD system will be a limited BMD system is the word of Bush and the next president that will either upgrade or dismantle the system when they take office. The fact that the LIMITED ABM system that is supposed to be NMD is to defend all US territory suggests that it would need all round defence assets including detection and tracking systems and launch systems. This means that like a ship it could defend from rather more weapons than if the system was designed to defend from say NK or Iran. We are told it is also to defend from an illegal launch of Russian missiles… perhaps by a couple of disgruntaled ex soviet soldiers… of course if anyone had the launch ID to actually fire a missile they couldn’t just fire one… they’d be able to fire about 120… and if they are SS-18s that could mean 1200 warheads.

I wasnt the one decrying the US development of NMD was I though Roel. Just wanted to introduce the balance that Russia knows quite a bit about the employment and strategic potential of a limited BMD system seeings they have had one for several decades!.

Huh? Jonesy what are you talking about? It is agreed to have one missile ABM system for each party. US chose not to have any because they had a two-type-missile defence, Spartan and Sprint. Hence they removed the system because the components couldn’t work whithout the other. Russia didn’t, they chose to keep one type of ABM missile, and that only around their capital. The status of this system is doubtful though. And what makes you conclude that really is an ABM site? I could identify that LPG-tanker, but I can’t see any missiles, radars or other stuff here, except for some very weird shapes and a nice roadsystem. Could be piece of land prepared for a new village 😀

Without an ABM treaty then limitation or even reduction of strategic weapons is pointless. It is like a gunfighter in the wild west having an agreement with the local gunslinger that he will only load his pistol with 6 rounds… even if he has an automatic, and he wont buy a derrenger or a rifle and then he finds out the guy he is fighting is having a bullet proof vest made… it will be crap and may not work 100% of the time, but should he still be bound by agreements on the weapons he can have if the other guy is getting protection that he agreed before not to get?

http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/4_gal_01.htm

“Pot, this is Kettle, colour check…over”

I think this was about the START-1 treaty, article VI, restricting movement of mobile ICBMs. In START-1 not only missiles, but also their launch tubes are included.

Except one of the basis’s for the START treaties and the SALT treaties was the ABM treaty. Without an ABM treaty then limitation or even reduction of strategic weapons is pointless. It is like a gunfighter in the wild west having an agreement with the local gunslinger that he will only load his pistol with 6 rounds… even if he has an automatic, and he wont buy a derrenger or a rifle and then he finds out the guy he is fighting is having a bullet proof vest made… it will be crap and may not work 100% of the time, but should he still be bound by agreements on the weapons he can have if the other guy is getting protection that he agreed before not to get?

Then of course there is the rediculous CFE treaty rubbish… it was supposed to be about balance to avoid destabilising Europe… with most of what was the Warsaw pact now in NATO and even former Soviet countries having NATO membership (Despite assurances that NATO would not expand eastwards)… I am surprised they haven’t based a few Tochkas in Kaliningrad.

I wonder if the “news story” is’nt made up ?

I think this was about the START-1 treaty, article VI, restricting movement of mobile ICBMs. In START-1 not only missiles, but also their launch tubes are included.

meh.. referring to intelligence services.. that’s government..

What does this have to do with the Bush Administration?

OMFG. I would slap whoever is starting this argument on the American side. Take ur commanding crap elsewhere :@ That’s one thing that ****es me off about America. AmeriCANS don’t take this personally, people are one thing (im dating one, and im a ruski), but people who mouth off in Bush’s administration are another.

Yeah very childish indeed and amusing too , I dont think the start treaty dosent allows you not to station your missile any where, and giving direct orders to russian military command is unheard off, what if they dont move the missile , Start a world war-3 😀 .

I think the argument was over START treaty stuff…even if it is stupid 😀

However, the Americans were not reassured. They gave Kostroma’s military command 10 days to remove the “monument” from the military base and transfer it to the local administration. The monument will be put to mark the 60th anniversary of the victory in the Second World War.

Is Kostroma in United States ?? LOL

The Russians can put their missiles wherever in their country they want. Since when did the Unites States start giving directions on how to point missiles at them ?? LMAO

I don’t quite understand.. What’s wrong with Topol-M being at active military base? And where else should it be? In the ground school?

And, finally, since when Americans should give direct orders to a Russian military command?

Please, I hope they leave it there. What are we going to do? Start a major international incident over a single missile? It’s not like they’re putting it in Havana…